Losing Ronnie Johnson hurts Purdue.
It makes the Boilermakers a less talented team next season, takes away a player who could have matured into a real standout and now leaves Matt Painter's team - one in need a of rebound season - with a big fat question mark at the most important position on the floor: point guard.
Purdue needs to "stay old," Painter always says, referring to the experience quotient that's been stuck on "low" the past two seasons because of a parade of transfers.
Those transfers are becoming Painter's scarlet letter at Purdue, half or so of the scholarship players he's signed as the Boilermakers' head coach having now transferred or otherwise not completed as much eligibility as they could have in West Lafayette.
It may not necessarily be fair to generalize. Every one of those cases was different, and common denominators few, but the fact remains that that is not a flattering picture to the casual observer, nor will this reflect well on Purdue in Indianapolis, where the story will be ready by I don't know how many potentially important recruits.
Now, Purdue has five scholarship players slated to return next season, assuming A.J. Hammons is back and it's starting over at point guard after investing so much in Johnson the past 66 games.
How did this happen? You've seen our earlier report by now, hopefully.
Both sides are at fault, at least to some degree.
Throughout the season, there clearly appeared to be a communication gap between Painter and Ronnie Johnson, whether it was the point guard saying, 'I don't know what he really wants from me,' regarding Painter saying he needed to be more vocal, to the near-indignation after the game at Wisconsin, when Painter pointed out that Purdue - without calling Johnson out by name - settled for too many early jump shots, to which Johnson replied, 'It's not like those shots haven't gone in before.'
I am paraphrasing there but remember both comments distinctly and relay them fully aware that coaches can talk all the want but can't make those they're talking to listen.
Painter is not a coddler by nature and a lot of people would consider that a compliment, but from a player-relations standpoint, there was a disconnect here. What works with Chris Kramer or Lewis Jackson or Rapheal Davis might not work with everyone or, sometimes more importantly, those around them.
And the point guard position came under heavy scrutiny this season, with the importance of decision-making and its sub-categories like shot selection and turnovers.
There was that meeting at Christmastime. From what the Johnson side, apparently, took from that was the term "bad teammate." Whether that was verbatim, inferred or conceived in the eye of the beholder I have no idea, but whatever it was, it did not help matters.
So some stroking, or diplomacy, might have served to extinguish this fire.
That said, the generally forthright Painter was pretty protective publicly of his point guard through his hot-and-cold play - seven assists one night, seven turnovers the next; 7-of-7 at the foul line one night; 2-for-7 the next - the highs and lows of a player who improved as a sophomore, but still has a long way to go.
Painter didn't say much of anything publicly about little annoyances like the then-freshman not bringing the right jersey to New York City last year for his first road trip or being late for practice earlier this season and thus not starting.
And if I were the coach, I might have flipped my lid over my point guard - a crucial, crucial player - fouling out against Oklahoma State on a tech brought on by trash talk, taking the mouthy Cowboys' bait.
Point is, if Painter came off like the bad guy here, he could have been an ever badder guy.
Maybe Painter could have been more diplomatic sometimes in saying it, but what he asked Johnson to do was make good decisions, take care of the basketball, take prudent shots and lead. There's not a college coach in America who won't ask the same things of his point guard.
Often when transfers happen, part of it is the player simply not realizing what he was getting into and not meshing with the coach or being willing or able to do what's needed from there. The oddity here is that if there's anyone who should have known exactly what he was getting into, it was a player who was around the program for years before actually enrolling, because of his brother's recruitment and then presence in the program.
When transfer happen, everyone is at fault.
I will say this: There is a certain casualness to Ronnie Johnson, on and off the floor, that will drive any coach he plays for nuts at times and will hold him back as a player if he does not grow out of it. He can be a professional one day, if you ask me, whether it's a fringe NBA prospect in the best-case scenario or a long-time overseas pro. But only if he develops more self-awareness and urgency as a player and away from the floor.
I have lost track of what I'm even writing about at this point.
This was about Purdue, right?
Purdue wanted Ronnie Johnson back, no question.
But it wanted no part of the drama behind the scenes any longer.
It was Matt Painter who made the phone call Saturday and it was not a call made with the intention of talking anyone out of anything. An in-person meeting was slated for next week at which time Purdue would have had a chance, however slight it might have been, to talk the player out of transferring. Painter forfeited that chance, a pretty telling act here.
Maybe this takes a possible source of distraction away from next season's team and serves as some measure of trade-off for the loss of a pretty high-level talent, I don't know.
Maybe it helps A.J. Hammons - who Purdue has so very much invested in in so many ways without any sort of team success to show for it a - since the post-centric philosophy clearly was part of whatever style-of-play concerns played a role in this.
There are a lot of unknowns here in terms of how this will ultimately affect Purdue, but in the moment it's difficult to pick "better" over "worse" if you have to pick one or the other.
Johnson is a good player with a chance to be a very good player and the gulf between him and what Purdue is left with at his position is significant, with Bryson Scott being a work in progress as a point guard - Painter on whether Scott is a long-term point guard: 'I don't know' - and P.J. Thompson being just a freshman. Ultimately, this is a game in which both talent and experience win. And Purdue lost both talent and experience today.
Both ends of that loss hurt and taken in context, so does the fact that Purdue has now lost two real talents from the 2012 class in both Johnson and Jay Simpson. That takes a significant bite out of future rosters. The 2012 class has been cut in half already, Simpson's loss being the fault of no one but Mother Nature.
Purdue will be young again, another spring signee away from a team that'll have more newcomers on scholarship than returnees.
One step forward, two steps back, the story of the Boilermakers' experience quotient.
This carousel has to stop at some point, but for at least one more spring, it's in motion.
Copyright, Boilers, Inc. 2014. All Rights Reserved. Reproducing or using editorial or graphical content, in whole or in part, without permission, is strictly prohibited. E-mail GoldandBlack.com/Boilers, Inc.
It makes the Boilermakers a less talented team next season, takes away a player who could have matured into a real standout and now leaves Matt Painter's team - one in need a of rebound season - with a big fat question mark at the most important position on the floor: point guard.
Purdue needs to "stay old," Painter always says, referring to the experience quotient that's been stuck on "low" the past two seasons because of a parade of transfers.
Those transfers are becoming Painter's scarlet letter at Purdue, half or so of the scholarship players he's signed as the Boilermakers' head coach having now transferred or otherwise not completed as much eligibility as they could have in West Lafayette.
It may not necessarily be fair to generalize. Every one of those cases was different, and common denominators few, but the fact remains that that is not a flattering picture to the casual observer, nor will this reflect well on Purdue in Indianapolis, where the story will be ready by I don't know how many potentially important recruits.
Now, Purdue has five scholarship players slated to return next season, assuming A.J. Hammons is back and it's starting over at point guard after investing so much in Johnson the past 66 games.
How did this happen? You've seen our earlier report by now, hopefully.
Both sides are at fault, at least to some degree.
Throughout the season, there clearly appeared to be a communication gap between Painter and Ronnie Johnson, whether it was the point guard saying, 'I don't know what he really wants from me,' regarding Painter saying he needed to be more vocal, to the near-indignation after the game at Wisconsin, when Painter pointed out that Purdue - without calling Johnson out by name - settled for too many early jump shots, to which Johnson replied, 'It's not like those shots haven't gone in before.'
I am paraphrasing there but remember both comments distinctly and relay them fully aware that coaches can talk all the want but can't make those they're talking to listen.
Painter is not a coddler by nature and a lot of people would consider that a compliment, but from a player-relations standpoint, there was a disconnect here. What works with Chris Kramer or Lewis Jackson or Rapheal Davis might not work with everyone or, sometimes more importantly, those around them.
And the point guard position came under heavy scrutiny this season, with the importance of decision-making and its sub-categories like shot selection and turnovers.
There was that meeting at Christmastime. From what the Johnson side, apparently, took from that was the term "bad teammate." Whether that was verbatim, inferred or conceived in the eye of the beholder I have no idea, but whatever it was, it did not help matters.
So some stroking, or diplomacy, might have served to extinguish this fire.
That said, the generally forthright Painter was pretty protective publicly of his point guard through his hot-and-cold play - seven assists one night, seven turnovers the next; 7-of-7 at the foul line one night; 2-for-7 the next - the highs and lows of a player who improved as a sophomore, but still has a long way to go.
Painter didn't say much of anything publicly about little annoyances like the then-freshman not bringing the right jersey to New York City last year for his first road trip or being late for practice earlier this season and thus not starting.
And if I were the coach, I might have flipped my lid over my point guard - a crucial, crucial player - fouling out against Oklahoma State on a tech brought on by trash talk, taking the mouthy Cowboys' bait.
Point is, if Painter came off like the bad guy here, he could have been an ever badder guy.
Maybe Painter could have been more diplomatic sometimes in saying it, but what he asked Johnson to do was make good decisions, take care of the basketball, take prudent shots and lead. There's not a college coach in America who won't ask the same things of his point guard.
Often when transfers happen, part of it is the player simply not realizing what he was getting into and not meshing with the coach or being willing or able to do what's needed from there. The oddity here is that if there's anyone who should have known exactly what he was getting into, it was a player who was around the program for years before actually enrolling, because of his brother's recruitment and then presence in the program.
When transfer happen, everyone is at fault.
I will say this: There is a certain casualness to Ronnie Johnson, on and off the floor, that will drive any coach he plays for nuts at times and will hold him back as a player if he does not grow out of it. He can be a professional one day, if you ask me, whether it's a fringe NBA prospect in the best-case scenario or a long-time overseas pro. But only if he develops more self-awareness and urgency as a player and away from the floor.
I have lost track of what I'm even writing about at this point.
This was about Purdue, right?
Purdue wanted Ronnie Johnson back, no question.
But it wanted no part of the drama behind the scenes any longer.
It was Matt Painter who made the phone call Saturday and it was not a call made with the intention of talking anyone out of anything. An in-person meeting was slated for next week at which time Purdue would have had a chance, however slight it might have been, to talk the player out of transferring. Painter forfeited that chance, a pretty telling act here.
Maybe this takes a possible source of distraction away from next season's team and serves as some measure of trade-off for the loss of a pretty high-level talent, I don't know.
Maybe it helps A.J. Hammons - who Purdue has so very much invested in in so many ways without any sort of team success to show for it a - since the post-centric philosophy clearly was part of whatever style-of-play concerns played a role in this.
There are a lot of unknowns here in terms of how this will ultimately affect Purdue, but in the moment it's difficult to pick "better" over "worse" if you have to pick one or the other.
Johnson is a good player with a chance to be a very good player and the gulf between him and what Purdue is left with at his position is significant, with Bryson Scott being a work in progress as a point guard - Painter on whether Scott is a long-term point guard: 'I don't know' - and P.J. Thompson being just a freshman. Ultimately, this is a game in which both talent and experience win. And Purdue lost both talent and experience today.
Both ends of that loss hurt and taken in context, so does the fact that Purdue has now lost two real talents from the 2012 class in both Johnson and Jay Simpson. That takes a significant bite out of future rosters. The 2012 class has been cut in half already, Simpson's loss being the fault of no one but Mother Nature.
Purdue will be young again, another spring signee away from a team that'll have more newcomers on scholarship than returnees.
One step forward, two steps back, the story of the Boilermakers' experience quotient.
This carousel has to stop at some point, but for at least one more spring, it's in motion.
Copyright, Boilers, Inc. 2014. All Rights Reserved. Reproducing or using editorial or graphical content, in whole or in part, without permission, is strictly prohibited. E-mail GoldandBlack.com/Boilers, Inc.
